Forum:Race Histories
Something's been bugging me for awhile, and not only is it something that I think requires a degree of consensus, but isn't something I'm keen to do as per the workload involved. Basically, it's race histories, or rather, those of the "big three." How on their pages history is given, but there's a main article link as well. This is a good idea in principle, but I feel there's an inherant issue as well—when does something historic go on the race page, on the history page, or both? Repetition is bad, but so is leaving out pertinant info. It's almost put me off history editing in a sense as I don't want to do a job twice, and sometimes I feel iffy making the call. Personally, I think it would serve the pages better to have a single main article link in species articles to the history, as through that, there'd be no repetition, and no line drawing. Or, what I would think would be the best solution, is to cut down on race histories, summing up the bare necessities. E.g. for the zerg, have a paragraph for each stage: *Origins *Expansion *Great War *Brood War *Interbellum *Second Great War Again, "paragraph" for each. Short, but too the point, and it can leave the nitty gritty details for the history articles (e.g. says Kerrigan removed the cerebrates in the race article, but gets into the reasons behind it in the history article). As I said, it's something that I think requires consensus, and has to be an all or nothing act for the "big three." Not going to start right now at any rate.--Hawki 12:21, July 13, 2011 (UTC) :So, in effect, reduce the historical information in the base race pages. Yes, we could do that. :I also noticed the timeline page has essentially stolen all the information from the StarCraft storyline page. I looked at the storyline page recently, and it's the same thing, only less detailed. We could probably just rename timeline "storyline" at this point. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 12:39, July 13, 2011 (UTC) ::That's a good point. I haven't really looked at either article that much—I focus more on individual year articles for the former, and I know the latter well enough to not have to look at it. Looking at them now, they do take slightly different approaches, in that the storyline article gives more info on species and the development of the story. I think they're both viable as they are, but in regards to distinguishing them as different types of article...that's a can of worms. All I can really say is that a timeline should be straight to the point, whereas a storyline article can read in a more 'flowing' manner. Or, if the timeline article is ported to the story one, make a seperate timeline article focussing entirely on dates and context (e.g. the whole 2504/'05 thing and the solidifcation of the timeline).--Hawki 12:46, July 13, 2011 (UTC) :::Kind of resurrecting this topic, but looking at the zerg history section/page, thinking of all the stuff HotS will do...honestly, I think it's best to just keep it to the one page, to have a link to a single article. At least with the timeline page there's a clear divide of keeping the big, important stuff on the page while we can address more minor events in individual year pages. On the race pages, there's no such divide. One can't even copy-paste because some info is too detailed for the race pages for their histories when it's got its own page already. If it's alright, I think it's best just to scale down to one page each.--Hawki (talk) 11:59, October 8, 2012 (UTC) Category:Watercooler :::I would prefer to keep history in its own article, if only to control the size of the zerg article. Saying that, we should look into ruthlessly slimming down the zerg article's history section as much as we can. This would have to be done in conjunction with improving division of the zerg history article to allow ease of linking. - Meco (talk, ) 06:54, October 9, 2012 (UTC)